Jump to content


Ammo rebalance


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

Poll: Ammo rebalance (42 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

Do you want WGs proposed ammo rebalance to be implemented?

  1. yes (again - wgs ammo rebalance, not the one you're dreaming about ;) ) (11 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. no (33 votes [75.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.00%

Vote Hide poll

snowlywhite #1 Posted 18 October 2019 - 02:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26831 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

out of cuiriosity

 

once more: the question refers to what's on the table from WG; not your own personal ammo rebalance which would be great and so on.

 

also, there are only 2 options on purpouse. It's not "I like the gold part, but don't like HE part and like whatever and don't like dunno what". Whole proposed change, not bits from it.


Edited by snowlywhite, 18 October 2019 - 02:08 AM.


ThorgrimBrenadim #2 Posted 18 October 2019 - 02:17 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35557 battles
  • 727
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

Too many changes reduce HE improve AP more HP.

 

Just nerf the damage done by APCR rounds also possibly give an over penetration like in WoWarships where if you shoot a lightly armoured tank with say 50mm armour with a 300mm plus round shell it will wizz straight through and there will be a chance of some damage ( say 20% )  one or two crew killed, and also a big chance of no damage at all.



Richthoffen #3 Posted 18 October 2019 - 07:32 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31146 battles
  • 2,715
  • [MS-] MS-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

over penetration sounds a bit silly when the modules and crew are almost making up for al internal space in a tank, unlike a ship.

90-122mm shell hitting a target 7 meter long comparing with a 300mm hitting a 60 meter long target, there is basically more empty space.

as wg likes RNG so much add a dice throw for modules and crew when firing APCR  more pen then AP, 20% less damage and a higher chance on criticals as bits and pieces will bounce around upon penetration doing damage to crew and modules.

lose the damage on non penetrating HE so lightly armored targets will still be vulnerable to HE.. and get rid of the splash doing damage to heavy armor, something like a Maus should have no damage from a missed shot as shrapnel won't penetrate.

this will probably overcomplicate things for the average russian player so doubt wg is willing to go this direction



Negativvv #4 Posted 18 October 2019 - 08:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14884 battles
  • 2,227
  • [KEKE] KEKE
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

Over Pen would suck... It would open a whole new of whine on this forum as people would cry that their high calibre only does a tiny bit of damage when it slams through the enemy LT.

 

WoWS has fail posts asking for Battleships to do full damage and flooding to everything they touch. Which might be realistic but not balance.



snowlywhite #5 Posted 18 October 2019 - 11:20 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26831 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018
com'on folks; I'm really curious. More votes ;)

shikaka9 #6 Posted 18 October 2019 - 11:23 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 73820 battles
  • 1,610
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
I have only one vote... me, dont understand this democracy :trollface:

snowlywhite #7 Posted 18 October 2019 - 10:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26831 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

damn democracy :P

 

I don't see how overpen would work. Work as in being a relevant addition to the game. If you're a normal human being you load gold for what you can't pen in the 1st place.

 

All it'd do is make close end games worse. Since normally that's when you might shoot gold without being the case. Due to being out of standard.

 

p.s. - how do you counter wv? The other case when I load apcr is for wv due to shell velocity.


Edited by snowlywhite, 18 October 2019 - 10:33 PM.


Homer_J #8 Posted 19 October 2019 - 12:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 33157 battles
  • 36,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postsnowlywhite, on 18 October 2019 - 02:05 AM, said:

 

also, there are only 2 options on purpouse.

Can we vote for both on porpoise too?



wEight_Tanker #9 Posted 19 October 2019 - 01:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 11791 battles
  • 1,382
  • [D_L_Z] D_L_Z
  • Member since:
    11-13-2016


snowlywhite #10 Posted 19 October 2019 - 01:52 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26831 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 19 October 2019 - 12:51 AM, said:

Can we vote for both on porpoise too?

 

every day you learn somethin' new :P






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users